If you have followed SBPDL, you’ll know this blog used to be entirely devoted to # posts (such as tipping, belts, sidewalks, etc.) but that switched at some point in the 2010. I’m working on a response to Steve Sailer, whose latest Vdare article basically stated what this blog has argued (as will the book, The Opiate of America); that collegiate and professional sports and the Black “domination” in both football and basketball is enough to off-set the enmity felt toward a population that is largely housed, fed, and clothed by white taxpayers who do everything humanely possible to move away from these Black population centers.

That they then pay good money to follow majority Black sports teams is utterly nonsensical, but such is life in Black-Run America (BRA).

That Sailer didn’t even mention this blog or the many posts on the subject is fine. He is a far superior writer than me and he obviously has he his reasons.

But first, I’ve been thinking about the Newsweek cover story from a few months about Beached White Males, the study that white people now perceive anti-white bias to greater than any other (even anti-Black) in this nation, and now this story from Yahoo! that delineates a demoralized white working class in BRA:

But as the country grew more diverse and better educated, the white working-class share of the adult population slipped to just under 50 percent in the Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey. That number has since fallen below 48 percent.The demographic eclipse of the white working class is likely an irreversible trend as the United States reconfigures itself yet again as a “world nation” reinvigorated by rising education levels and kaleidoscopic diversity. That emerging America will create opportunities (such as the links that our new immigrants will provide to emerging markets around the globe) and face challenges (including improving high school and college graduation rates for the minority young people who will provide tomorrow’s workforce).

Still, amid all of this change, whites without a four-year college degree remain the largest demographic bloc in the workforce. College-educated whites make up about one-fifth of the adult population, while minorities account for a little under one-third. The picture is changing, but whites who have not completed college remain the backbone of many, if not most, communities and workplaces across the country.They are also, polls consistently tell us, the most pessimistic and alienated group in American society.

The latest measure of this discontent came in a thoughtful national survey on economic opportunity released last week by the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project. If numbers could scream, they would probably sound like the poll’s results among working-class whites.

One question asked respondents whether they expected to be better off economically in 10 years than they are today. Two-thirds of blacks and Hispanics said yes, as did 55 percent of college-educated whites; just 44 percent of noncollege whites agreed. Asked if they were better off than their parents were at the same age, about three-fifths of college-educated whites, African-Americans, and Hispanics said they were. But blue-collar whites divided narrowly, with 52 percent saying yes and a head-turning 43 percent saying no. (The survey, conducted from March 24 through 29, surveyed 2,000 adults and has a margin of error of Â±3.4 percent.)

What makes these results especially striking is that minorities were as likely as blue-collar whites to report that they have been hurt by the recession. The actual unemployment rate is considerably higher among blacks and Hispanics than among blue-collar whites, much less college-educated whites.

Yet, minorities were more optimistic about the next generation than either group of whites, the survey found. In the most telling result, 63 percent of African-Americans and 54 percent of Hispanics said they expected their children to exceed their standard of living. Even college-educated whites are less optimistic (only about two-fifths agree). But the noncollege whites are the gloomiest: Just one-third of them think their kids will live better than they do; an equal number think their children won’t even match their living standard. No other group is nearly that negative.

Those students who go to state schools are normally saddled with loads of debt and the majority move back in with their parents (The Huffington Post reports 85 percent) upon receiving a diploma that certifies they spent four (maybe five) years partying at a resort that sometimes doubles as a college.

Of course, these are the lucky ones — the graduates who found a job. Among the members of the class of 2010, just 56 percent had held at least one job by this spring, when the survey was conducted. That compares with 90 percent of graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007. (Some have gone for further education or opted out of the labor force, while many are still pounding the pavement.)

Occidental Dissent has been doing phenomenal work as of late discussing the costs of Black-Run America, basically showcasing that white taxpayers are funding their own dispossession.

Over Memorial Day Weekend 2011, through the beauty of decentralized news dissemination the chaos inflicted on nearly 10 cities by one group of people went viral. Thanks to one Web site (The Drudge Report) tens of millions of eyes saw a truth that no amount of Disingenuous White Liberal (DWL) praying can make go away now. Lawrence Auster wrote that Salon.com published an article by a DWL writer who understood the veracity of what Drudge let slip:

Matt Drudge’s non-political obsessions used to be harmless things like “extreme weather” and “pictures of Olympic wrestlers.” Since the election of Barack Obama, though, Drudge — the proto-blogger and reclusive creator of the noted Courier New tribute site the Drudge Report — has developed a new fixation. He seems to be actively seeking out and publicizing stories of kids and young people getting in fights.

Not just any people, mind you! People with something in particular in common.It sort of started with the tale of Ashley Todd, the 20-year-old McCain campaign volunteer who claimed she was attacked by a savage, black Obama supporter, who supposedly carved the letter “B” into her face. She made the whole thing up, but her story’s many inconsistencies and unlikely elements did not stop Drudge from heavily publicizing it, until it all fell apart.

Then there was the tale of the New Black Panther Party poll-watchers who “intimidated” Fox cameras in Philadelphia. You can imagine how much Drudge enjoyed that one.

Since Obama actually took office, though, Drudge has seriously stepped up his “scary black people” coverage. There was, in September of 2009, the story he heavily publicized of a kid on a bus in Illinois getting beaten up. A kid on a bus in Illinois getting beaten up is not really national news — until Drudge makes it so. The fact that the beater was black and the victim white is why Drudge made it national news. Rush Limbaugh made the subtext explicit: “In Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.”

It all came to a head, as John Cook noted, this Memorial Day weekend when Drudge posted 10 separate headlines — including the massive, above-the-logo one — related to violent incidents involving “urban” people at venues like “Black Bike Week” in Miami and “Rib Fest” in Rochester, N.Y. There was an “Urban Melee in Charlotte,” for example. Do you know what makes an “urban melee” different from a regular “melee”? It’s not that it takes place within the city limits of a major metropolitan area. It’s that it involves the world’s most obvious code term for “scary black people.”Drudge does not collect and attempt to tie together disparate, unrelated stories of crimes committed by drunk, rowdy white kids. And for the record, drunk, rowdy white kids commit a lot of crimes, in a lot of places!

In an era when urban white flight is reversing and violent crime is at record lows across the nation, this world of race riots and constant violent attacks on innocent Caucasians exists only in the imaginations of Matt Drudge and the paranoid suburban and exurban white people he wants to keep terrified. Stoking those racial fears goes beyond cynical political point-scoring. To devote so much energy to attempting to make whites terrified of blacks is just vile.

One white kid beat up by Black people is hardly news as Salon.com correctly points out, to a media (and nation) that has created a narrative that only white people can be racist. If it had been a white-on-Black attack, that case would become fodder for grade school text books; a nightly special on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and eventual movie; and a cause célèbre that would make the Jena 6 pale in comparison.

That academia, the media and virtually every organization had devoted so much energy to attempting to make whites terrified of being white is just vile.

That violent crime is at record lows is true, because record numbers of Black males are locked away in jail. However in majority Black cities, Black crime is rising.

Over the summer of 2011 one major voice on the so-called “right” is going to let slip a “Hate Fact” on their radio show, a television interview, or in a tweet. Just like the Drudge Report showed over Black Memorial Day 2011, millions of people will realize its okay to have those thoughts and that they aren’t alone.

Unlike those whites polled who understand something is wrong with this nation, I’m incredibly optimistic about the future. This is not a white nationalist blog; that term is asinine, stupid, and if you believe this site to be such you are woefully wrong.

This blog (and our archives) is nothing more than a compendium of knowledge that exposes Black-Run America for what it represents. We have put up our flag and know that people will find us (just as you reading this have).

The writer at Salon.com who cried over Drudge exposing a truth no dying national news entity will provide (save the local nightly news) knows full well that millions of white people are nearing that point of no return.

The alternative is paying for a system of government (and by extension, business system) that hates their existence. That is the white privilege of 2011.

No problem facing the United States can be dealt with until Black-Run America ends. And as the ranks of Those Who Can See begin to swell, the power of BRA to frighten away frank discussion of race ends and the courage to finally start Eric “My People” Holder’s discussion on race begins.

The Drudge Report’s brave May 31, 2001 page and the reaction to it from the left – remember most organizations in America are vested into BRA – has revealed that we aren’t far off from that moment transpiring.

Older white people, highly educated, with no hope. Younger white people, highly educated, with no hope. Both because they have the wrong skin color in BRA. Working class whites left behind to enjoy the Black Undertow… all the aforementioned no longer economically viable in BRA.

That a vast Blue Ocean awaits the person who decides to become the public face of the battle against BRA will eventually persuade someone incredibly prominent to voice what will immediately be universally denounced.

The market opportunity for serving Those Who Can See will eventually become too obvious not to cultivate. Matt Drudge has shown that that moment is near.

Yesterday, the beach, located steps away from the South Boston State Police barracks, attracted thousands of families and other Memorial Day revelers gathered for the unofficial start of summer. While the majority of the crowd was peaceful, the unruly youths again gathered at the beach and in nearby parking lots.

The troopers called for backup. State Police streamed in, State Police Special Tactical Operations teams and Boston SWAT teams arrived, and the Boston Police Department activated its Emergency Deployment Teams, which brought officers into South Boston from all over the city. State, Boston, Boston Housing, UMass, and Transit Police responded, for a total of more than 100 police officers.

For the third time in four days, police dispersed the crowd, rushing everyone off the streets.

The dispersal caused some tense moments between those not involved with the youths and police, who formed a line to herd the crowd south, down William J. Day Boulevard. Some jostled and argued with officers.

At one moment, SWAT officers were rushing a crowd down the boulevard, and a woman yelled at a state trooper because the little boy with her was trying to put his shoes on as the trooper was pressing them to keep walking.

The report out of Chicago is even stranger, with the new Mayor Rahm Emmanuel applauding the police for closing North Avenue Beach because of apparent “heat exhaustion” suffered by a number of Memorial Day revelers. In actuality, it appears roving bands of Black people required the quick closing the beach:

Was it a flash mob that forced the closure of North Avenue beach on Memorial Day?

Chicago Police News Affairs released a statement saying they had to close the beach for safety reasons, as people were suffering heat exhaustion and emergency vehicles couldn’t get through to help. But, WLS listeners say there was what they called a “large gangbanger element” at the Oak Street and North Avenue beaches.

Webster’s dictionary defines a flash mob as a group of people summoned (as by e-mail or text message) to a designated location at a specified time to perform an indicated action before dispersing. Flash mobs also can be organized via social media sites. But recently in Chicago, flash mobs have gathered along Michigan Avenue to do anything but entertain.

In January, groups of teens assembled along Michigan Avenue and shoplifted at three separate stores. Eleven teens ranging in age from 14 to 17 were arrested.

Chicago Police are denying that a flash mob intent on causing havoc forced the closure of the North Avenue beach on Memorial Day Monday.

Remember Black Memorial Day 2011, and remember what Matt Drudge did with his Web site that drives more traffic than Facebook or Twitter. Drudge drives the news in ways that The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times could only dream of doing.

The common denominator in every story of Memorial Day madness across the nation was Black people interrupting family experiences at the beach, lake, rib festival, water park or events geared specifically toward Black people like Black Biker Week, Urban Beach Weekend or a Speed Street celebration.

And yet Matt Drudge was clever enough to link to the story of Mein Obama’s Department of Justice going after big-city police department for purported civil rights violations when Chicago’s police are trying to cover up Black violence and blaming the closure of a beach on “heat exhaustion.”

Remember this day, as millions of white people – already aware that anti-white bias is getting worse in Black-Run America – saw stories of Black depravity in almost 10 United States cities that boarders on the truculent. And they saw where Eric “My People” Holder’s DoJ’s priorities rest.

MSNBC reports the Police Executive Research Forum polled 233 local law enforcement agencies in 2009, and found that the link between poverty and crime was inextricable. A prolonged recession would only make matters worse, the research showed. After reviewing the data, PERF Executive Director Chuck Wexler told Reuters, “We are not saying there is going to be a crime wave, but we are saying this is a wake-up call and we anticipate the situation will continue to deteriorate.”

Even when crime rates dropped, older urban areas still had more violent crime like Buffalo, NY, Philadelphia, PA, Cleveland, OH and Hartford, Conn. Crime is not necessarily explained by poverty; it is also explained by the reduction in police forces in those areas which results in higher crime rates. For example, Pontiac, Mich., part of the corridor of high crime cities that runs from Detroit to Flint, recently turned over its police operations to the sheriff’s office of Oakland Country, where Pontiac is located.

The top five list of America’s most dangerous cities in America with populations over 100,000 is as follows:1. Flint, Michigan2. Detroit, Michigan3. St. Louis, Missouri4. New Haven, Conn.5. Memphis, Tenn.

This study highlights what has been proven time and again — high numbers of unemployment result in high levels of crime. The two are inextricably linked and one cannot exist without the other. The way that unemployment is plaguing black communities in these cities is outrageous. We’re not surprised that there is an uptick in violent crime, despite a decline nationally. The question is, when are we going to do something about unemployment?

Crime has been down in these tough economic times (we reported on this already), but those most dangerous cities happen to majority Black, just like every Memorial Day disturbance throughout the nation was courtesy of Black people.

Matt Drudge has done something that will little remembered nor long forgotten; he has exposed Black-Run America for millions of white people who realize something is rotten in America. Where we go from there (just like the climatic scene of The Matrix) is a choice he leaves to the millions and millions of white people who read his site.

The media is working overtime to depict Obama as a hero and personally responsible for the raid against Bin Laden’s suburban mansion in Pakistan.

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, has revealed the media’s accounts to be a fantasy.

First we learned from Panetta that Obama was opposed to the raid. He had to be forced into it kicking and screaming by the CIA. Now Panetta has revealed that the alleged photo of Obama watching live feed of the raid is a fabrication. We had to learn this from the British press. Do not exspect many American media outlets to cover it!

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

“We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”

Mr Panetta also told the network that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president.

The media is doing everything they can to help Obama. Why not mention the fact that Obama is giving $2.4 Billion of our tax dollars a year to finance a regime in Pakistan that was probably aiding and abetting Bin Laden. Bin Laden was living large in a gated suburban palace down the street from Pakistan’s largest military academy.

In fact, Pakistan won’t even return the surviving pieces of a top secret stealth helicopter. Pakistani intelligence whisked away the surviving pieces of the helicopter for possible sale to China.

The Suicidal Paradigm – A Conversation With Ole Jørgen Anfindsen

I recently had the privilege to exchange a series of questions with Norwegian author and pundit Ole Jørgen Anfindsen via e-mail. Anfindsen’s writings on race, gender, and political correctness have appeared in major publications, and provide a rare corrective to the prevailing orthodoxies about those subjects. He founded the English- and Scandinavian-language website HonestThinking.org with his brother Jens Thomas, and is currently its editor. His recent book Selvmordsparadigmet (The Suicidal Paradigm) features original contributions by Roger Scruton, Henry Harpending and Frank Salter, and Fjordman.

Svein Sellanraa: You often write about race and immigration. Explain your basic position on these issues and how it differs from prevailing opinion in Norway and the West.

Ole Jørgen Anfindsen: The existence of racial differences, including in average IQ and other mental abilities and dispositions, is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Experts disagree among themselves as to the relative importance of nature and nurture when it comes to explaining said differences, but the completely extreme position that they are all due to environmental factors only has never really been tenable, and can now safely be dismissed as plain stupid; anyone who subscribes to such a view is simply ignorant or dishonest. This is so because, as many have pointed out before me, you cannot have populations living apart for several generations without genetic differences accumulating.

Not only have various races and ethnic groups been subject to different selective pressures through centuries or millennia, and therefore evolved differently in terms of personality traits, general intelligence, and more, we all have an inherent tendency to identify with and prefer those with whom we are closely related, genetically speaking, i.e., our own people. This follows as a corollary of William D. Hamilton’s groundbreaking insight about gene-centric evolution (popularized in particular by Richard Dawkins in his international bestseller The Selfish Gene). While I am a great admirer of Dawkins’ unparalleled ability to popularize science, I think he has thus far failed to live up to his responsibility as one of the world’s most influential intellectuals, by hardly addressing the thorny issues and ethical dilemmas that racial and ethnic differences give rise to. Two outstanding authors who have indeed done so are Frank Salter (a political scientist) and J. Philippe Rushton (a psychologist). Interested readers are advised to look for books and articles from said authors discussing topics such as genetic interests or genetic similarity theory.

All of the above is, by the way, valid even for those who subscribe to a creationist world-view, since we are merely discussing evolution within a single species (in this case Homo sapiens), i.e., an example of what creationists prefer to call micro-evolution; a phenomenon in which they are firm believers. In other words, religious fundamentalists cannot escape the race-related issues just by claiming that they are a by-product of ‘atheistic science’, or something along those lines.

Whether we like it or not, observations like these have profound political consequences. While I think we should avoid all kinds of excesses and extreme viewpoints here, and while we should in particular not jump to the conclusion that immigration is always bad, we need to realize that man’s biological nature places certain limits on the number of immigrants that can be absorbed in a certain amount of time by a given society without that society becoming dysfunctional. In other words, a society cannot remain sustainable unless immigration is limited to such a level that successful integration of immigrants can indeed be accomplished.

Several factors influence how difficult it is to integrate different groups of immigrants, but the most important of them seem to be how distantly related they are to the indigenous population in terms of language, culture, religion, and race/ethnicity. The general problems of multiculturalism and Western immigration policies are convincingly and thoroughly discussed by Professor Byron M. Roth in his excellent book The Perils of Diversity.

SS: Why and how was HonestThinking founded?

OJA: It was founded by my brother Jens Tomas Anfindsen (a philosopher) and myself back in 2005. We were both frustrated by what we perceived as a lack of honest public discourse on a number of topics, including ones having to do with feminism, race, ethnicity, culture, Islam, and immigration. Given the reluctance of the mainstream media to allow said topics to be discussed but in the most cursory and superficial way, the two of us decided to establish our own website.

We chose the name HonestThinking (HT) because we felt that perhaps the most fundamental problem of Western societies is its widespread flirtation with dishonest thinking. In particular, as explained in our General Manifesto, we are opposed to philosophical relativism as well as the collection of phenomena loosely referred to as postmodernism. We see these approaches or positions as being self-defeating and incoherent, and therefore ultimately incompatible with democracy and freedom, and thus something every truth-loving and honest person should fight against.

Using HT as our platform, my brother and I have been quite active in the public debate in Norway. Most of the material published by HT is in Norwegian (or the closely related languages Danish or Swedish), but we also publish quite a bit of material in English. The Norwegian/Scandinavian section has thus far been given the highest priority, while the English section to a large degree has functioned as a kind of “reader’s digest”, where we highlight noteworthy quotes and point our readers in the direction of articles of particular interest. However, our own judgments and points of view are usually implicitly, and quite often also explicitly, visible.

In 2007 my brother began working full time for a Norwegian think tank, at which time he had to abandon all his HT work to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Later he and his family moved abroad, so I have since 2007 run HT by myself and on my spare time. Thus, HT is admittedly a fairly humble member of the worldwide family of websites fighting against the prevailing tyranny of political correctness. Even so, I think it has a certain unique flavor that makes it worth visiting, and I hope this interview will cause more people to acquaint themselves with HT.

SS: I understand that an English translation of Selvmordsparadigmet may be published sometime in the future. What is the premise of that book, and what can it contribute to the discussion outside of Scandinavia?

OJA: While certain sections and appendixes in Selvmordsparadigmet (The Suicidal Paradigm) contain material that is primarily of interest to Scandinavian readers, most of the contents of my book is highly relevant to the entire Western world, and actually beyond that as well (countries such as e.g. Japan, China, and South Korea ought to carefully study the grave mistakes that have been made in the West, and take measures to avoid repeating them).

Thus, I am currently making preparations to see if there are publishers who might be interested in an international version of The Suicidal Paradigm, which I would then hope to see translated into English and possibly other languages as well.

My book proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Western politicians, rather than basing their views on a scientific understanding of human nature and human biodiversity, have chosen to build their policies on a foundation consisting of a disgraceful mixture of lies, half-truths, and wishful thinking. The basic thesis of The Suicidal Paradigm is that no country, no nation, no society can indulge in said kinds of dishonesty without destroying its democracy and becoming unsustainable. In other words, my book sets out to convince its readers that the Western world has adopted an intellectual paradigm that will ultimately lead to civilizational suicide.

The Suicidal Paradigm is a science-based book. However, it is written in a language that can be understood by the proverbial man in the street, and it should be of interest to anyone who cares about the big political questions and the future of our children.

The reactions in Norway have been strongly divided; people either love the book, or they hate it. While mainstream media have published a couple of sarcastic and superficial reviews that hardly take the book’s contents serious, or – more often – have simply pretended the book does not exist, a number of individuals have reacted in an overwhelmingly positive way; many of them have expressed their opinions publicly, and even more have contacted me directly. I can confidently state that my book creates a lot of enthusiasm with those who are willing to seriously consider its message.

The Suicidal Paradigm (like several others, e.g. Prof. Roth’s book mentioned above) is meant to be a wake-up call to the Western world. We either have to turn from our utopian and unsustainable ways, and set our house in order, or somebody else is going to do it for us. Both options are going to be painful – the former a lot less so than the latter.

SS: It is often claimed that political correctness has advanced farther in the Scandinavian countries than anywhere else in the world. Do you agree with this claim? How does PC manifest itself here?

OJA: No, I am not convinced that the situation in Scandinavia as a whole is very different from the rest of the West. However, the three Scandinavian countries are quite different as far as PC oppression and lack of freedom of expression is concerned, ranging from critically ill to not bad. Please allow me to comment on each one separately below.

Sweden is now in a terrible state, and the country can hardly be considered a proper democracy any more. The PC censorship is formidable, and there is widespread persecution, sometimes violent, of opponents. While hostile groups of immigrants are turning an increasing number of suburbs into no-go zones, the main concern of the ruling elites apparently is to figure out how to prevent the Swedish people from putting and end to the continued destruction of their country. The situation in Sweden is a disgrace not only to themselves and Scandinavia, but to the entire Western world.

The situation in Norway is a lot better, although there is obviously room for improvement. People with non-PC opinions are few and far between – or largely invisible – among our elites. Even so, the multiculturalists have not yet succeeded in taking away our freedom of expression (and not for lack of trying). Thus, non-PC people that would have been censored or brutally silenced in Sweden are more likely merely to be ridiculed or ignored whenever they manage to voice their opinions in the mass media here in Norway. The Internet seems to be the only place where anything that resembles a truly free and open debate does indeed take place. And, in all fairness, it should be mentioned that our major newspapers allow a fairly free debate to take place at their respective websites. One of them, called Verdidebatt and owned by the Christian daily Vårt Land, even invited me to be a guest writer for two weeks at the time of my book’s publication. Verdidebatt has, by certain intellectuals and political activists, been heavily criticized for this, but its editors have thus far stood their ground affirming their dedication to free speech (and I do indeed continue to publish articles on various topics at this website).

Denmark appears to be among the most free and democratic countries in the Western world and the mainstream media give room for lively debates on many issues related to immigration and integration. It is also interesting to note that Denmark has a number of prominent intellectuals who regularly challenge PC thinking. Alas, most Danish intellectuals, with psychologist Helmuth Nyborg and philosopher Kai Sørlander being notable exceptions, tend to shy away from what are perhaps the most important issues of all in this context, viz. those having to do with racial differences and ethnic identities.

This brings me to another question which I think should be at least briefly mentioned in this context. The immigration-related public debate in the Scandinavian countries – to the degree that there is such a debate at all (see above) – is very much centered on Islam and Muslims, and much less so on the formidable – quite possibly impossible – challenges of integrating into the indigenous population foreigners who, genetically speaking, are quite distantly related to the Scandinavians. Not only is this unfair to Muslims who are made into scapegoats and blamed for all the problems of multiculturalism, one is also automatically granting half a victory to the ruling elites by implicitly agreeing to the latter’s claim that there actually are certain issues (viz. those related to race/ethnicity) where political correctness ought to be considered more important than scientific correctness.

This is not to say that Westerners aren’t facing challenges having to do with our relationship to Islam. We are indeed, and we are going to need frank and honest discourse about all the involved issues. What I am saying is merely that these things must be put into perspective, and that anyone who pretends that Islam is the one and only topic we need to discuss, is doing the Western civilization a great disservice.

SS: Many of the opinions you advance are considered beyond the pale by the establishment. How did you come to hold such iconoclastic views, and how have people reacted to them?

OJA: Whenever people in power try to prevent certain issues from being discussed, there is every reason to be suspicious. Over the years it slowly dawned on me that the propaganda we are all being fed about all races and ethnic groups having the same intellectual and mental capabilities is not much more than a combination of wishful thinking, half-truths and downright lies. As anyone with a basic understanding of science can easily figure out, this beautiful and egalitarian view of humanity just cannot be true. Pretending the world is different from what it actually is, hoping that this will cause the problems to go away, is not only stupid and naïve, but will also ensure that the problems are exacerbated.

After having thought long and hard about the issues and being convinced that the truth is what sets us free, I decided a few years ago that I was no longer going to ignore the elephant in the room, and I was no longer willing to go along with the hypocrisy that is expected of all ‘decent’ people, and so I started to write about racial issues at the HT website, and also voicing my opinions in the media. This has caused quite a bit of heated debate, and I have of course been branded a racist by some. With last year’s publication of The Suicidal Paradigm the whole situation has intensified, but by and large I think people tend to respect a person who sticks to his or her convictions, and refuses to give in to pressures of conformity. I have repeatedly challenged Norwegian scientists and intellectuals to prove me wrong, but the few that have tried have, in my (possibly biased) opinion, failed miserably. Many people are beginning to realize that our current policies are based on an utterly false view of human nature and racial differences, but thus far they hesitate to draw any conclusions from this, let alone speak up about their concerns. Processes like these take time, unfortunately, and as the years go by the West continues its move in the direction of disintegration and demise.

SS: What can be done to keep the West from committing suicide? Do you see any chance of this happening, or is it already too late?

OJA: While I do not see it as inevitable that the West will eventually commit suicide, it does appear to be a quite likely outcome of today’s processes. The currently ongoing destruction of our societies is possible because people either don’t care enough to speak out against our elites, and/or because they actually believe that we are merely going through some ‘adjustments’ on our way to the multicultural paradise. Our political Titanic can only be turned around if sufficient numbers of voters demand a change.

This appears unlikely to happen in the near future, and I suspect that part of the reason has to do with a certain level of decadence that has permeated the Western mindset. Exaggerating somewhat, people care more about wealth, status, and careers than about the future of their own children. As a matter of fact, we are not even producing sufficient numbers of children for there to be any future for us at all. Unless there is a change in attitude here, our societies are doomed, and deservedly so.

I suspect we have a long fight in front of us; a fight that will ultimately be about what Western civilization is, and upon which values it should be built. As we engage in battle with those who hate the West and everything it stands for, as well as those who despise people of European descent, let us not stoop to their corrupt ways and despicable methods. Let us affirm the value of every human being, irrespective of ethnicity, race, or religion (or lack of such). Let us be caring, reasonable, and generous – without becoming utopian, stupid, or naïve. And let us, above all, seek the truth – wherever it may lead.

For the past several years, the Tucson Unified School District has spent millions of dollars on its “Mexican-American Studies” studies curriculum. These programs are designed to teach Mexican students in the district that America is an evil, racist empire and that the American Southwest is really Aztlan—the ancestral home of the Aztecs that rightfully belongs to Mexico. The classes were so racist that one of the teachers in the program, John Ward, wrote in 2008 that “the basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.” The classes, many of which are taught by unlicensed teachers, also preached revolution against the U.S. and praised Che Guevara and other Latino revolutionaries.

In response to this disgrace, the Arizona House of Representatives passed HB 2281 in May. The bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, prohibits any public school in the state from teaching classes that “promote the overthrow of the U.S. Government,” “promote resentment toward a race or class of people,” or “advocate for ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” A group of TUSD teachers sued the state to block the law, and it’s currently in the courts.

On April 26, 2011, the TUSD board of governors was scheduled to have a public meeting about the Raza Studies program and how to design it in accordance with HB 2281. The meeting had to be canceled, however, after dozens of Raza Studies students stormed the meeting room, chained themselves to the board members’ chairs, chanted pro-Mexican slogans and pounded tables. A video of this illegal demonstration can be found here:

This is not just an impulsive action by a handful of misinformed teenagers, but the natural consequence of the Raza Studies program itself. Students are taught that American institutions of government are racist, that the state of Arizona is illegally occupied by “gringo invaders”, that violence is the only effective means of political action, and that the tactics of Marxist revolutionaries like Guevara are to be idolized. Is it any wonder that they act like this?

Thomas Jefferson understood that an educated populace was crucial to the survival of our Republic, and was one of the first Americans to propose widespread public education. In 1785, he wisely argued that grammar school curriculum should consist primarily of “the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European, and American history.” Why? Because Greek, Roman and European cultures formed the basis of both our government and our national identity. And, though it is now impolitic to admit, those cultures collectively represent the pinnacles of human thought and accomplishment.

In the same years that Europeans were inventing the printing press, developing the heliocentric model of the universe, painting the Sistine Chapel and designing cathedrals, the Aztecs were sacrificing 250,000 people a year and cannibalizing their remains. The myth of equality between these cultures that the Raza Studies program promulgates is a dangerous lie with dire consequences for our country.

It seems that quite a few readers have lost track of what exactly is going on during the Wilders trial. The issue at stake is on what basis our society will come to rest: which is more important? Freedom of religion, or freedom of speech? Not just in The Netherlands, mind you. This trial has much broader consequences.

Let me start off by making it easy: freedom of speech does not mean you have the freedom to shout “FIRE!” in a cinema, for example. There is ample jurisprudence on that one. Freedom of speech has its limitations. You have the right to say what you feel about any religion, but you may have to clarify that in court. Again, there is ample jurisprudence about that topic as well.

There is a current trend, both in Europe as well as in the USA to give freedom of religion far more importance than it actually deserves. That is what is at stake. Currently, someone put an image of Jesus in glass of urine, as an art form. Utterly tasteless, I fully admit. But it falls completely under freedom of speech.

I understand that some (not even that many) Christians are offended. None of them is burning down art galleries, beheading artists, or killing other Christians to show their dislike. That is in stark contrast with mohammedanism, which would go completely berserk if an artist were to place a koran in a jar of urine. They’d happily kill any number of people, including their own, to show their fury. It doesn’t matter at all where the artist lives: be it Nova Zembla, Antarctica, or anywhere between.

This has already happened many times. Offend mohammedanism — anywhere on the world — and we will take revenge. Terry Jones burned a koran, in America. Which is well within his constitutional right to do. It was not (yet) possible to kill that infidel, so they went berserk in Afghanistan. Much easier to do there anyway. Not that easy to kill infidels, sadly. Most infidels in Afghanistan wear flak jackets and carry M16s. So they picked a few of those that don’t and a large number of mohammedans as well. About 24 people killed altogether, as I recall.

The reaction is Chamberlainian: We have to change our laws, in order to compel to their religious beliefs. That is the world on its head. But many politicians will happily appease themselves into dhimmitude. The Dutch government is doing that right now, actually. All for oil…

The Wilders case is far more complicated than that. Wilders is an elected parliamentarian. He cannot be prosecuted for his words outside parliament. But he can be prosecuted for his statements made in public outside parliament. And that is what happened.

That seems not unreasonable, until you read the charge, and see how this circus progresses. The DA did not want to prosecute, because he considered it an impossible case to win. The court had to order the DA to do so, which he then unwillingly did. His demand was release from prosecution. A DA can do that. Normally, the court would by then understand that the case is utterly hopeless and dismiss it.

However, this is a purely political trial. Make no mistake about that. The court did order the prosecution to proceed, and put Wilders on trial. Fortunately, Wilders is defended by the best lawyer in the country. The first trial was dismissed into a re-trial. Not unprecedented, admittedly. However, this particular outcome was absolutely unheard of. Certainly in a trial of this magnitude.

If you had watched the judges blunder along, the DA making a fool of himself and most important: if you had seen the complainants utterly misbehave and show their unprofessional hatred, you’d be disgusted. This was not a trial, this was being put on the stake. If the court had any decency, as one might expect from a court, it should have ordered all the complainants inadmissible.

One of the councillor-complainants was arrested the day after the trial for climbing over a fence into a military facility. The man is a professional hippie (with filthy hair and ponytail), but he’s pushing 60… He behaved exactly like that in court: as a hippie high as a kite on grass demanding that his (unreasonable) demands be met. Not professional at all. An angry fishmonger would have presented his case more clearly and less revoltingly. Another one already showed his blatant hatred for the entire legal system (in which he actually works) by appearing with a muslim headdress and refusing to remove it. (One is not allowed to wear funny hats in Dutch courts; only a magistrate has that privilege.)

So now we see the Wilders-show Part II: “The hanging continues”.
Wilders must be found guilty. Anything goes to get his head into the noose. After the murder of Pim Fortuyn, having him popped by accident is rather difficult to do. Although the murder of Fortuyn was all too obvious, the organizers got away clean. I doubt if they can do it again. Nobody would believe for a minute that Wilders had been murdered for the sake of poor baby seals. (The murderer of Fortuyn claimed to have murdered him for animal welfare.)

So we have to open the dirty tricks book, and see what we can use. The phone call for Moszcowicz was a set-up. He didn’t fall into it, but barely so. Only after seeing the entire clip second by second, many times, did I begin to understand the set up. It was very cleverly done. If you watch the clip just once, you won’t spot it. Certainly not if you don’t understand Dutch. Because the whole trick was linguistic.

What many people — amongst others minister Piet Heijn Donner — do not understand is that shariah law does not have to be implemented as one single package. Muslims would be perfectly happy to see it become enforced in little steps. Piet Hein Donner made himself ridiculous in the previous government by stating he saw no problem with Shariah law, provided it was democratically approved.

Sheer ranting nonsense: that implies he has no problems with gas chambers, either, or cannibalism, provided a legal majority (in both parliamentary chambers) approve of it. Of course that’s impossible. But the big difference is that shariah law can be applied without even changing the constitution at all. If I can understand that, why has the minister of justice such a hard time understanding this? He has a much better legal training then I’ll ever have.

Nobody will ever come up with a shariah book of law and propose that it become Dutch law in parliament. First both houses must approve, then both must be dissolved, after new elections the matter is put to both houses and only then would shariah law be Dutch law. It won’t happen that way, because it never happened anywhere on this planet that way. Yet, the minister seems to think so.

The first step is already taken. Both in the USA and in The Netherlands. We have to make any religion more important than freedom of speech. That is what is on trial in The Netherlands, and that is why the left-wing powers behind it go full steam to get Wilders convicted. Once any religion can no longer be insulted, it’s a tiny step to forbid questioning of all religions. After all, have you ever met a fundie who is not offended by serious questions regarding his beliefs? And from there we simply enforce that new law, but only to the maximum when the religion is mohammedanism. After all, mohammedans have no problem at all insulting any other religion. They do so daily.

It seems so innocent: in order to protect innocent lives, we have to act when somebody burns any religious book. But nobody will legally act if someone places a crucifix in a jar of piss. Cover a koran with bacon, however, and it’ll be the electric chair for you. Maybe not today, but it is well on its way.

The truth about today’s most important issues will have to wait. They don’t have time for that; right now it’s time to be entertained with some news about an out of touch celebrity or even worse it’s time for some cleverly designed distraction. The Media has become the gospel, the ultimate propaganda tool for the intellectually lazy who refuse to do their own research, who dismisses facts that don’t fit with the pre-established narrative.

We have an entire generation who doesn’t know anything unless it comes from that tube and their not the only ones. We dress like the tube says, we eat like the tube says and we raise our kids just like the tube says.

What do you think would happen if the most awesome and powerful propaganda force were to fall in the hands of the wrong people; this tube that can make or break Presidents, this tube that has power over our courts and our realities?

Force: Our Work, or Your Guns.

Many people do not understand why conservatives oppose most government programs, or broader collective systems such as Socialism. The issue comes down to the very philosophical basis of government itself, and how it operates: by force. All other systems and groups operate around the choices and trades made by individuals. (My labor, for your wage.) You may argue that corporations use unfair tactics to limit people’s choices, but there is no real argument that governments offer individuals more choice. In fact – in a purely democratic system (which America is not), the only real choice you have with regard to government is your vote, which of course is completely negated if it is not aligned with the majority of other votes.

For instance, I may choose not to drive a car, or purchase gasoline – but I may not choose not to pay my taxes, which are used to build and maintain our roads. (This is not an argument for privatizing roads, just an example of choice vs. force.). The principal is simple: If I am unable to simply say one word, “No” – then I am being forced to act, forced to work, forced to serve someone else with my mind.

A common criticism of this discussion is that it is too abstract or, for instance “doesn’t feature a single word about policy.” I would simply argue that a philosophical understanding of why government exists, how it functions, and what its role should be is far more essential than any policy discussion. In fact – it must pre-empt policy discussions. Policy is decided longafter people have already made assumptions about what government can and should do.

Many people have written about the proper role of government in the past, but sadly, their ideas are substituted in favor of chatter about this or that policy. For the person who perhaps hasn’t taken a moment to think about the core issue, “What is the role of Government,” allow me to present two arguments about the proper, and improper use of force (Government being an institution of force).

The following is an excerpt from John Galt’s speech toward the end of Atlas Shrugged. It highlights some important points about the use of force that must be considered when talking about government functions, since (in America at least), Government is the only institution granted the monopoly use of force. This is a bit of a mild spoiler if you have not read the book – so if that is the case, you may wish to come back to this after reading the book. The video clip is just an excerpt, so be certain to skip to the text below. I have added emphasis.

“Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others.

“To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.

“Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no ‘right’ to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

“To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument-is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life-and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

“Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: ‘Your money or your life,’ or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: ‘Your children’s education or your life,’ the meaning of that ultimatum is: ‘Your mind or your life’-and neither is possible to man without the other.

“If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer’s wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.

“It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.

“In the name of all the producers who had kept you alive and received your death ultimatums in payment, I now answer you with a single ultimatum of our own: Our work or your guns. You can choose either; you can’t have both. We do not initiate the use of force against others or submit to force at their hands. If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it Will be on our moral terms. Our terms and our motive power are the antithesis of yours. You have been using fear as your weapon and have been bringing death to man as his punishment for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his reward for accepting ours.”

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Clearly, Force in itself, is not an evil thing, just as guns in themselves, are not evil. However – applying force against an individual’s will is a violation of that individual’s basic human right to liberty. As Rand’s fictional character John Galt put it, to force someone to substitute their own will for yours or another’s, is to deprive that person of choice, or the proper use of their mind.

This brings us back to the core question: What is the proper role of Government? Or in other words – how can the collective force be used, in a manner than does not violate the rights of individuals? This question can be applied to all manner of topics: From National Defense, to Education, to Universal Health-care – the first question, the question that is more fundamental to every situation is – does this policy fall within the bounds of the proper application of force. How are we to determine this? Bastiat again helps with this quandary:

See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

As soon as government breaks out of its proper boundaries (its limits, which I believe were the very purpose of our Constitution), each individual’s mind is in grave danger. No – this isn’t some “black helicopters and tin-foil hats” nonsense, but you simply have to apply what you know about human nature, and add in the power of coercive force without proper function or limit. The bigger and more centralized a government program becomes, the greater number of individual wills are overrun by the relatively tiny will of the elected body. This is exactly the reason that conservatives favor smaller, more local initiatives (if they favor them at all). Programs and policies that claim to represent everyone, more accurately represent no-one. The closer a representative is to the people whom they represent (and the fewer people they represent), the more likely that their choices will align with the wills of the represented.

This is also the reason conservatives reject socialism and other collectivist philosophies. Not only do these philosophies have a history of mass atrocity, at their very core, they fundamentally act against the individual. Given human nature’s fatal tendency to dominate (by force) other human beings – it is easy to see the dangers of setting up systems which encourage and enable this ability.

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Back to the concept that conservatives being “short on policy.” There are people who believe that if only the “right policy” (the right application of force) were implemented, then everyone would benefit. This sounds like a nobel idea (and is classic among collectivists), but the ends do not justify the means. You cannot confiscate work, to encourage work. You cannot enslave, to set free. This is contradictory. Historian and Communist Howard Zinn penned the popular “A people’s History of the United States” (though I take huge issue with his use of Presentism) which catalogs the suffering and horrors of underdogs and people trampled by force throughout history. And yet – all the while, he supported the idea that “the right government” could wield force, or if “the right people” controlled the levers of power, it would benefit “the people.” Zinn spent his life demonstrating the destruction that the use of force wreaked on people, and yet never arrived at the idea that force cannot be initiated against the unwilling, even if done with noble intentions.

And this truth is the core of my argument. Firstly, I reject the group classification of “the people.” There is no such thing. There exist only totally unique individual human persons. Therefore, there is no way for any policy to be “right” for each individual person. Economist Thomas Sowell put it this way: “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.” To take this question away from a person, and hand it a third party, is to remove the choice from the person with the best knowledge to make it. I think each person needs to decide what is best for themselves, their family, their children, etc. Not some elected group of “experts” claiming to act in the individual’s best interest.

This is why true conservatives advocate ideas that increase liberty. We don’t believe that if we only had “the right government,” or the “right policy” every societal ill could be corrected. We believe that each human being is an individual person, and thus do not address nameless, faceless groups, and classes of people. We do not create political mascots out of groups, such as “the rich,” “the middle class,” or “the poor” so that we can pit them against one another. Nor do we have the audacity to proclaim ourselves so above society that we can fix their problems with our magical policies, if they would only surrender us the power.

By advocating more liberty, given the dismal history of the human condition, conservatives are the true progressives. Liberty is the only situation where each individual is truly a person, capable of making the maximum amount of choice about their own life. With Liberty, the individual has rights and is not demanded by threat of imprisonment or death to surrender his mind, his choices, or his work to the will of another. A free man offers the product of his choices (or his mind) in exchange for something else of value. He determines what he judges to be a fair trade – not a third party. He offers true charity out of his own desire to help another person, not by edict imposed from the desires of a politician. He is not forced to work for someone else, neither does he force another to work for his benefit. In doing so – his rights do not necessitate the destruction or sacrifice of anyone else’s. The choices in his mind, do not command the minds of others.

Thus, the proper and only role of government is to protect human rights, or men’s minds from being violated by force.

“…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Let us stop proposing policies which are destructive to this end. Let us not regress into soft-despotism and servitude. Let us progress, as a nation, with ideas that free individual’s minds.

Post navigation

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of ecological, political and humanitarian significance.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Update:
In an effort to keep our readers aware of the world around them, due to the continued removal of free speech post and censorship, we will be in the process of looking for a new home for this site.

6/20/2011
We have located a new home for this site, please stand by for further instructions.

Locust Blog

Creative Commons Lic- See Authors links

Race Realism

‘Man is a mammal and subject to the same biological laws as other animals. All animals, including Man, have inheritable behavioural traits. The concept of complete environmental plasticity of human intelligence is a nonsensical wishful-thinking illusion.’

From titans to Lemmings

“The time for talk has ended, only course of action open to us is WAR!”

"The time for talk has ended, only course of action open to us is WAR!"

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. — D.H. Lawrence

Ayers’ Plan to Kill 25 Million Americans
Larry Grathwol, Weathermen, William Ayers, Communism, History
line

“The most effective informer the F.B.I. ever placed among the Weathermen” (NY Times) Larry Grathwol describes how William Ayers and other Weather Underground leaders cheerfully planned to deliver the United States to foreign occupation, and proposed to murder 25 million Americans.

Grathwohl: I brought up the subject of what’s going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we become responsible for administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics. How are you going to clothe and feed these people?

The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education in the Southwest where we would take all of the people who needed to be re‑educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re‑educate, that are die-hard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re‑education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.

Bring it on! WE WILL FIGHT YOU, WE HAVE BEEN MAKING BOMBS AND BUYING LEGAL AND ILLEGAL WEAPONS FOR YEARS, AND WHEN THE TIME COMES MY FELLOW PATRIOTS AND MYSELF, WE WILL TAKE TO THE STREETS, YOU WILL HAVE TO KILL US TO TAKE THIS NATION, BRING IT!!